Noutions Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

Freaktana A Major Disappointment

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Glimmerubro It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

ursulahemard Hailed by the Greek Film Industry as a masterpiece and having received so many prices, I was rather disappointed. Based on a biographical novel by a Greek writer of the 20th century, El Greco's life is very much fictionalised and a tad distorted. The entire plot is misleading from facts right from the beginning: it starts in a prison cell, where El Greco is writing down his life whilst awaiting a Spanish Inquisition hearing after being apparently of blasphemy.. But, this never happened. The painter has never been accused by the Tribunal of the Holy Office, but he was invited a few times as a translator to Greek prisoners. Which obviously makes sense as El Greco made Toledo, Spain, his home until his death, where he produced most part of his work, inclusive so many with religious themes. He would have never been able to do so if he would have been in conflict with the Grand Inquisitor of Spain, Nino de Guevara. This historical and biographical inaccuracy made me already so angry that I might be a bit biased in judging the rest of the movie. The movie is very slow and although I normally like voice overs, this actors intonations are blunt and dragging. We learn about El Greco's cretan origins; his fleeing from a rebellion to Venice; his meeting of Titian; some interactions with existed real life characters, and ultimately his settling down in Toledo, Spain; his relationship with Jerónima de Las Cuevas, his common law wife and the mother of his only son. It looks that these biographical facts are accurate. This is a pompous romantic costume drama with some action for sure, which was the part I liked best, but not enough paintings elaborated. The soundtrack by Greek electronic composer Vangelis creates a modern atmosphere which again, gives the movie a rather HBO-series effect than a big screen Film Festival favourite. All in all, B+ for effort only … but could have been much better. Should have been much better! What a genius of a man, with a very interesting life as it is, to make a movie about his life if they only would stick to the true story and use his colours and lights and many many of his paintings!

chaos-rampant This was a big thing when it came out, fellow Greek readers will attest to that. It was aggressively promoted as both 'expensive' and 'prestigious', it seems a rare thing for Greek cinema. The story went that the filmmaker had to mortgage his own house to finance his vision, proof of bold artistic merit. The movie played theatrically for what seemed like endless months - to make back its partly government-subsidized budget the rumor goes, since little interest materialized abroad. Schools planned 'educational' trips to the cinema, probably for the same reason.How small it seems now. You can see loftier production values on TV, and probably much better acting and a less grating parade of profundities.What really offends though is the spirit behind the work. It's not that it is dull and completely without insight about its own craft. It is both these things, but that's a simple incompetence. I mean, here is a film about a man of extraordinary vision who wanted to paint with light, and the 'inspirational' film about him is wholly ordinary, as lush and spiritual as perfume. What poor use of Aris Stavrou, who once liked to puzzle (next to Nikos Nikolaidis) about texture and light.It's that Smaragdis hoped to capture a bit of Greek soul (not necessarily historical 'truth') and journey with it abroad, a noble aim. Capture us as we dream ourselves to be, feisty and passionate Zorbas, made pensive by centuries of hardship - a bit like Kusturica did for the neighboring Yugoslavs.The film is set in those centuries of foreign rule, Italian and Ottoman elsewhere. There was no Rennaisance allowed in those times, it would be good to note, no lofty national art as they could develop in the salons of Western Europe. Our painting was religious. Our theater was song and dance, from Thrace to Crete. The collective soul had to pour that way, which is why they still persist and resonate so strongly in these parts - as elsewhere in the former empire.You will know it's all phony by watching the scene of proud Cretans dancing after a skirmish with the Italians. You'd think, if there was a bit of ancient Greek song rising from the earth, it would be in that scene. If you are ever in the region, go to a Cretan wedding or folk fest, in fact anywhere in rural Greece during times of celebration. Then watch the posturing in the film. Dismal.If you want to know a bit about these things, to see actual Balkan spirit, seek out a man called Sergei Parajanov. He was Armenian who made films under Soviet rule, but it is the same soul he captured.

thinkMovies The screenplay is at times good, the sets and costumes passable, the story is good and nearer to the truth than most biopics -it even attempts to wove social and philosophical themes into the life of a gifted artist and his relationship with the man who admired him but could not become him.But, the photography is standard fare -as if it were made for television. The cinematographer fails miserably to grasp the opportunity afforded by telling the life of a painter in authoring with light and shadow and colors. It seems they did nothing but use textbook light and print what was in the camera without any of the care that makes Spielberg's cinematographers worth applauding.The direction is honest but it falls into the trap of directing actors in what to do and how to do it, instead of allowing them to breathe their own life into the film, for themselves. The actors, most of the time are the slaves of the cinematographer as puppets in ever-changing dramatic photographs.Nick Ashdon portrayed the main character as well as he was allowed by a limp and insecure director -unfortunately watching Nick Ashdon as El Greco was an exercise in trying to remember that I was not watching Joseph Fiennes in Shakespeare in Love.Juan Diego Botto as Niño de Guevara must have, in rehearsals, given director Smaragdis an expression from a certain camera angle that the director liked a lot, so he must have asked Botto to keep repeating it throughout the movie.There are some really bizarre moments of editing that make you wonder whether the director was interfering in the editor's work without the skill to do so, or whether the editor sneaked-in a few cuts that the director missed before the release. Then again they might have both been trying to make a dramatic statement but the efforts bore no fruit.This film is a genuinely honest effort by a genuine Greek director and crew to make a labor of love in telling the story and the soul of a great man. I urge you to watch it with this in mind. Because otherwise you will watch a film where the director, despite his passion, just didn't have what it takes.

giaourti Honestly i was expecting something much better. El Greco is one of the most important painters of Renaissance so, a film about his life should stress that importance. Instead ,we see a poorly written ,poorly acted film whose main focus is the costumes and the scenery. Almost all the actors have a terrible accent, which is understandable for their characters as they are Greeks/Spaniards/Italians etc. But then we have an El Greco, a Greek person mind you, who has a perfect British accent! Casting was poorly done and i'd rather see a Greek actor play El Greco. All in all, the film is watchable, but with all the money put into it, you'd expect something much, much better.